A middle point

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • A middle point

    @Giladis @tiny

    I have been reading the preview, the rulebook there is something that I don't understand. I don't want to be rude, may be a little be sarcastic, but not really rude. 9th age started 1 year ago (approximately) A lot people were very excited, even me. we thought that we could play in a balanced game, where you could use all your models, and you wouldn't see crazy things.

    I gave u a lot changes, at the begining even my mother could be a ABC, you just had to say that u played a lot and you played a lot tournaments. Months later I started to see your "secret" forum and what a surprise!! one day everything was black, the next day everything was white, etc. You tried a lot differents ideas, that was good, but you are making the same mistake again. You had a line, 1.1 was good, not amazing, but good, you just have to fix a little things, but, watching the preview, I think that I am playing a new and different game, differents points, just 10 lores, etc. why?? because u have no middle point.

    What is the meaning of middle point?? it is quite simple, when something is or so bad or so good, you just have to fix it "a little bit", not destroy it or buff it a lot. the way u used to balance things was that. I will give you an example: Salamanders, 1.1 they were really crazy, two of them together could destroy any block, Now, they are a joke, the same thing for sylvan elves, etc.

    In fact, I think that who create the books are not players, maybe players, but not competitive players, I will give you an example. @Palmu is a guy who helped to create UD, he spent a lot time on UB playing, he has idea about an unit does, so he is a good choice to create a book. One thing is when you read a unit, item, character, etc. and another thing is when you see this unit playing. do you know what I think?? that the rulebooks creators, army books creators, etc. are a bunchs of "brothers in law", brother in law is an expression which we use in my country to describe someone who has no idea about he is talking about but he talks about it how he has idea. In this game a lot people are an expert and when they loose it is because they had bad luck.

    U always use the same excuse "this game is alive, everything will change and we are trying to have the best balance" Maybe 1.2 won't be very popular, but in months we will redesign the army books with time, how much time?? and what it would happen if you had the same mistake?? Did you do self-criticism about your work?? Maybe the actual armybook committee is not good and they must be replaced

    There is nothing worse than when someone thinks that he is doing something right and that is not true. I am psychologist and I work with couples and it is very funny when all the husbands describe themselves as great lovers and later when you speak one to one with their wifes they prefer to be pinched to death before to have sex with them...
    Dj-Palomita15 <The Lord of the TOES>
  • I understand the hard work being put to this. Maybe... too much.But lets be honest here. The reason that 9th Age got big really fast is that it was giving us what GW pulled away: Warhammer.
    Frankly guys this doesn't feel like hammer. This set of changes happened too fast, it feels somehow like the End Times and AOS transition. You, of all people should have known better!
    I am not saying that 1.2 is good or bad. I am pointing out that the changes are so big that almost none of my lists are working any more and frankly i am not in the mood to rebase/rebuild anything again.
    Tweaks are fine and always a constant trigger of getting back to the old list, but we are talking complete makeovers here.
    No middle point as palomita states, forcing infantry in armies sucks, all characters being 3 wounds seems without logic.
    And the points...Obviously it goes towards 3.000 points or more. But...why? This is not a real problem ofc it is just without any obvious logic.

    For me 1.2 is somehow disappointing. Especially when it was eagerly awaited.

    Ps. I am not pitch forking or "demanding" explanations or calling for the internet herd to burn the forum Being at a reception point of internet hate many many times simply for speaking my mind i know better. But i think you guys made a strategic error : You hastened the transition from old hammer towards what you probably had in mind originally. At least it seems so which is kind of worrying. We don't want another GW here. We love your effort put to your job, heck i think about donating on a regular basis but if you are capable of pulling the hammer rug out of our feet then i am not sure people will be very happy. Apologies if i sadden you since the hard work put is immense.
    Coolest misfit ever

    The post was edited 4 times, last by zerocool ().

  • From an management perspective staying at v1.1 was never an option and moving slower wasn't an option either.

    The reason for it you stated yourself, we were perceived as to close to Warhammer and we cannot give you Warhammer. We never said we would...

    All we can strive for is a rank and file battle game with a specific game feel.
  • tiny wrote:

    From an management perspective staying at v1.1 was never an option and moving slower wasn't an option either.

    The reason for it you stated yourself, we were perceived as to close to Warhammer and we cannot give you Warhammer. We never said we would...

    All we can strive for is a rank and file battle game with a specific game feel.
    What will you do if the poll shows that 1.2 doesn't work, will you change your team?? because I have the feeling that you started to do that with your friends and u don't care about the feelings of the people, you just want to do a game how you want and when you want
    Dj-Palomita15 <The Lord of the TOES>
  • zerocool wrote:

    But shouldn't you guys baby step instead of giant leaping ?
    We need and want to get to a stable state as soon as possible, so baby steps will not cut it, because this would leave us changing core rule book rules still in 2 years from now, which is not acceptable if we want to be able to have printed books anytime soon.
  • Palomita15 wrote:

    @Giladis @tiny


    I gave u a lot changes, at the begining even my mother could be a ABC, you just had to say that u played a lot and you played a lot tournaments.

    [...]

    In fact, I think that who create the books are not players, maybe players, but not competitive players[...]
    As a Psychologist, don't you think such sentences are devastating for peoples who are volunteers ?

    Sorry, you can be against some changes in the rules, but do not forget they are doing a job that YOU are not doing. They are not paid for this, YOU don't pay to benefit their work.

    I am really surprised of the violence of posts on the Forum (something likes "they have broken my favorite rattle"). Come on guys ! let's be more civilized !
  • Mirdhynn wrote:

    Palomita15 wrote:

    @Giladis @tiny


    I gave u a lot changes, at the begining even my mother could be a ABC, you just had to say that u played a lot and you played a lot tournaments.

    [...]

    In fact, I think that who create the books are not players, maybe players, but not competitive players[...]
    As a Psychologist, don't you think such sentences are devastating for peoples who are volunteers ?
    Sorry, you can be against some changes in the rules, but do not forget they are doing a job that YOU are not doing. They are not paid for this, YOU don't pay to benefit their work.

    I am really surprised of the violence of posts on the Forum (something likes "they have broken my favorite rattle"). Come on guys ! let's be more civilized !
    I have been working as a volunteer and working as a volunteer doesn't means that u won't have criticism about your behaviour because you are working "free"

    I work in this forum giving all feed back and list and ideas I can give, just check SA forum I explained a lot games. I don`t work in their proyect because they have their ideas and they rule as they want. you just have to ask to any "support" that they have or had.

    I don't really care about if they destroyed my army another army or all the game, because in 2-3 months they will OP armies which they destroyed because they have no idea about the meaning of "middle point"

    I have been asking about what happen if they don't do a good job, will they give up?? They don't answer

    You know what´s happen?? that people don't want to face the reality and receive criticize...
    Dj-Palomita15 <The Lord of the TOES>
  • tiny wrote:

    From an management perspective staying at v1.1 was never an option and moving slower wasn't an option either.

    The reason for it you stated yourself, we were perceived as to close to Warhammer and we cannot give you Warhammer. We never said we would...

    What is disapointing and disturbing to me is that with all the work done for V1.0 in august, then all the work done a month later for the V1.1 in september for fine tuning, we (I ?) could expect some stabilization and convergence to something, defining a new base of the game.

    But no, I see all of this destroyed a single month later. all the base and the reference of the game is completly reworked in october. I would say, again and again. You even made some 180° on some rules between the fine tuned V1.0/V1.11 and the V1.2. EoT symptom to the destruction is still fresh in the memory.

    How can we trust you anymore. People are buying and painting new units (yes, you changed the list conception), to see some of them going to the closet a month later.
    It is, for the least, irritating.
    One of the problem of T9A said by people still not involved in T9A was the unstability of the rules, to many versions one after other months after months. It is still the case, nothing has improved on this matter.
    You are all complaining about all the hard work you have to do and how overworked you are. So why do you put that much effort to release so different versions so fast ? What push you that much to do that ?
    From a management point of view, something is running too fast the rudder. Slow down ?

    You choose the global nerf hammer solution, while the previous version was fine tuned.
    Yet I spend a lot of time on the forum, and still I do not understand the direction you are taking for the game. With range and magic combat being limited, only packs for close combat ? What is the game you want to create despite us ?

    Yes, I am not a big fan of fast change, because instead of playing you have to waste time reading, learning and testing again and again and again...
  • Palomita15 wrote:

    [...]
    You know what´s happen?? that people don't want to face the reality and receive criticize...
    It is just how you say that. You can be just polite.
    This remember me when I organized tournament for my association. The players (even players from my club) were just "princesses": They wanted all but without changing nothing and use sarcasms to say it.
    I was not as pretentious to make a perfect tournament, but you know, when you work hard on something, you are not (really really not) pleased to see such conversations (more over from peoples who didn't work on the project in my case).

    So as I said, you can be against some changes, you can say it, but don't be so condescending : it will help them to see their errors without thinking about you as a @*$#*% complaining guy. :)

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Mirdhynn ().

  • tiny wrote:

    From an management perspective staying at v1.1 was never an option and moving slower wasn't an option either.

    The reason for it you stated yourself, we were perceived as to close to Warhammer and we cannot give you Warhammer. We never said we would...

    All we can strive for is a rank and file battle game with a specific game feel.
    The thing is that you all told the community that this was going to be mainly a rule/magic update, and many armies have experienced a huge nerf and nothing deserving it has been fixed. So thats a lie, because you all had time to think about nerfs but no time to think about fixing things... If you have time for nerfing you have time for fixing, so stop telling people and selling the idea of this being a mainly a rule/magic/organisation update when its been much more than that, with huge army book changes in a bad way of course...

    Stop doing things so fast and bad and slow the thing down and make better changes. YOu want to run before learning to walk, and thats not possible.

    I dont think it a good deal for you getting everybody angry with this just because you want some thing done fast, no matter if they are good or bad...and then, for over a year...we will see our mistakes (which are easy to see by the way). Thats like saying "Ok, I´ll make something and I will check later if I did it properly...". Make things properly, make good army books, and then take the next step. And if you dont want to do things calmly and in a proper way, just leave them like they were and take your time to release everything at the same time but balanced and with quality, not the mess you have just done with some army books...
    Xhoka Lizards player - Spain

    Guardianes del Sur
    Youtube --> Guardianes del Sur
    Facebook -->Guardianes del Sur
    Instagram --> Guardianes del Sur
  • @tiny
    I am trying to help this project. Criticism might come across pretty strong since people get quite emotional because of two reasons:

    First like i said before the EOT experience. For some it was kind of a betrayal. This group of people formed a solid "customer base" of your product. You never said that you will give us back warhammer but, i am sorry, everything in this project implied that it would be warhammer-ish. I mean come on, lets be honest here. You didn't came up with the rule set you worked with fantasy ruleset imposing some excellent amendments/corrections.
    Second. Unit withdrawal. This is ill practice guys. Not cool. This should not happen. People will stop trusting you. Trust is fundamental inany kind of relationship.

    In all respects this is a project that was embraced by the community because it thought that it had an open channel with the creators. Which was lacking from GW. I think that maintaining this feeling is to our common benefit. It is too early to U turn and treat this as a business. Unless of course we are missing vital information....
    Coolest misfit ever
  • john_zamo wrote:

    If you have time for nerfing you have time for fixing
    That's a misperception! Fixing often requires a redesign (a task the ADT does book by book) and that takes much more time than adjusting point costs (which the Balance Team does).
  • tiny wrote:

    john_zamo wrote:

    If you have time for nerfing you have time for fixing
    That's a misperception! Fixing often requires a redesign (a task the ADT does book by book) and that takes much more time than adjusting point costs (which the Balance Team does).
    Then just dont touch anything and make a whole update with all the nerfs and improvements at the same time... its not so hard to understand, just common sense... Dont make just a nerf update leaving all the things that need to be improved untouched, because if you have 10 units, 5 good and 5 bad, and you nerf 3, you get an 8 bad units and 2 good units AB... mmm, how happy and pleased should we all be...
    Xhoka Lizards player - Spain

    Guardianes del Sur
    Youtube --> Guardianes del Sur
    Facebook -->Guardianes del Sur
    Instagram --> Guardianes del Sur
  • Palomita15 wrote:

    I have been asking about what happen if they don't do a good job, will they give up?? They don't answer
    This project is on the same market as anyone. So if job is badly done people will stop playing it and the project will die.

    Currently all focus is on 2.0 to be print ready and not to be changed for several years.
    Why print ready? So it can be in stores and not have 10 pages of FAQ/errata.
    Why do we want it in stores? So we get more, especially new, players.
    Why not just print 1.1? To be in stores you want to be legally safe as much as possible, not IP infringement anyone else's work. This is the major reason you are seeing all this changes.
    Army Design Team. :WDG: :EoS: :OK: :KoE:
  • john_zamo wrote:

    Then just dont touch anything and make a whole update with all the nerfs and improvements at the same time... its not so hard to understand, just common sense... Dont make just a nerf update leaving all the things that need to be improved untouched, because if you have 10 units, 5 good and 5 bad, and you nerf 3, you get an 8 bad units and 2 good units AB... mmm, how happy and pleased should we all be...
    That's a discussion you may want to have with the Rules Team and Balance Team.
    Fakt is that we can only see where we fall short when we see things in real live as the scroll article about balance elaborated:
    madmagz.com/magazine/872650#/page/21

    Right now all I read is 0% playtesting based feedback.
  • tiny wrote:

    john_zamo wrote:

    Then just dont touch anything and make a whole update with all the nerfs and improvements at the same time... its not so hard to understand, just common sense... Dont make just a nerf update leaving all the things that need to be improved untouched, because if you have 10 units, 5 good and 5 bad, and you nerf 3, you get an 8 bad units and 2 good units AB... mmm, how happy and pleased should we all be...
    That's a discussion you may want to have with the Rules Team and Balance Team.Fakt is that we can only see where we fall short when we see things in real live as the scroll article about balance elaborated:
    madmagz.com/magazine/872650#/page/21

    Right now all I read is 0% playtesting based feedback.
    If you play soccer and you change the round ball into a square ball you dont need playtesting to understand that something is bad designed ;)
    Xhoka Lizards player - Spain

    Guardianes del Sur
    Youtube --> Guardianes del Sur
    Facebook -->Guardianes del Sur
    Instagram --> Guardianes del Sur
  • tiny wrote:

    From an management perspective staying at v1.1 was never an option and moving slower wasn't an option either.

    The reason for it you stated yourself, we were perceived as to close to Warhammer and we cannot give you Warhammer. We never said we would...
    Care to elaborate on that? I assumed there hasn't been a C&D order, which doesn't mean there can't be in the future of course but with current care when it came to naming/IP sensitivities the law guys probably felt confident in the legality of the current workings/output.

    What changed in that respect? Because your post reads as if that's one of the main reasons for the scope of v1.2 changes, or at least the hurry-up.
    ✧✧✧ Make Greenskins great again ✧✧✧
  • DiaLogical wrote:

    I assumed there hasn't been a C&D order
    Correct!

    DiaLogical wrote:

    Care to elaborate on that?
    I leave it to @Digger614 to elaborate that in the degree he thinks we can do so in public.